RE: [Leica] Re: Leica & Contax test

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Bruce,

I agree with you that the M can be very fast to boot. If you prefocus and 
fix exposure settings beforehand. As a matter of fact, the M has been often 
tested as the FASTEST current 35mm system in the world when one measures 
delays between depressing the release and the exposure itself.

Nevertheless, it is also possible to prefocus the G2, by setting a given 
distance manually or by setting it through AF, and then blocking it there 
by keeping the rear lock button depressed. In those circumstances, the lens 
remains at its focused position, and the release delay is pretty short. The 
battery life as well, I guess.

After that, the G is much faster to reboot, thanks to its motor. And the 
AE, locked or not locked, offers a pretty good chance of successful 
exposure. A better chance than the M, especially with slides and rush 
situations. I want a AE motorised compact M bayonet body.

In changing light and changing distances with the subject, the M is 
relatively fast or very slow depending on the situations. The G can be a 
better bet in some circumstances, if it focuses as it should.

I have just shot a set of M6+50mm summicron Velvia slides for a snack bar 
owner. The scene was his pancake stall, set on a street near the Brussels 
flea market, around 11am. The weather was constantly changing (rain, 
clouds, sun), there was a lot of movement, a moving, compact, busy crowd. I 
had to work most of the time between f2 and f4 with the 50mm at 1/60sec 
(portraits of the cook and customers), and failed miserably on focus on a 
large proportion of the images. I failed on a few quick shots on exposure 
settings as well. Those that are good are, thank God, very good. But the 
proportion of keepers would have been far greater with the G2+45mm in those 
exact same circumstances.

Regarding 'blind' pre-focusing with the M, it is of course very easy and 
reliable with the 21 mm and gradually less so as the angle gets narrower. 
The DoF scale on the M lenses is a gorgeously clear design and the 'throw' 
of the focusing rings matches well the necessities of hyperfocal settings. 
The G is useless in that respect (NO DoF data whatsoever), but with the 
wider angles (21/28), the trained user will know what to do. The 16 is 
another breed altogether.

From the 50mm up, blind or guess prefocusing, with M or G, is science 
fiction, unless you close down to f16 with 3200 ISO film of course ;-)

Alan



On vendredi 26 mars 1999 15:06, Bruce Feldman [SMTP:brucef@waw.pdi.net] 
wrote:
> Rob Studdert writes:
>
> >Bruce,
> >
> >What is the difference between checking the focus indicator in the G2 
and
> >the spilt image in the M, I have both and I don't have trouble.
>
> The poster's point was that the G2 is faster than the M.  My response was
> that since you can prefocus the M out of sight of the subject -- and 
while
> not taking your eyes off the subject -- and cannot realistically do this
> with the G, then the statement is untrue.  Of course if you WANT to take 
the
> time to focus and meter the subject then speed isn't the issue in that
> particular situation.
>
> >> 2.  It you have to turn off the electronics in order to get the camera 
to
> >> work right, then that doesn't say too much for the camera, IMHO.  Why
> >> bother with it in the first place?
> >
> >Why turn it off? I like to have batteries on my MR-4 meter as well, it's 
a
> >bit useless otherwise.
>
> See above.
>
> >Please try to understand that not everybody has identical photographic
> aspirations, just because someone owns a G or M camera doesn't mean that
> they have an obligation to stalk subjects in order to capture that 
decisive
> moment. The operation of the G system suites many users shooting styles.
>
> Again, style was not the issue.  Please try to undertand the thread 
before
> you respond.
> Of course the G2 better fits the styles of some, I would assume.  For
> instance, Dan Khong
> has already told us that his eyes are going bad.  The G2 would be perfect
> for such a
> photographer.
>
> It is just not faster than the M in the hands of an experienced user in
> situations where
> speed is an issue.  In addition, by all accounts, the G2 was *intended* 
to
> compete with
> the M.  I'm delighted that some find that it can fill another niche.  But
> comparing the two
> is perfectly logical.  By your criteria, no camera could be compared with
> another.
>
> Bruce Feldman
> Warsaw
>
>
>
>
>